I recently was unable to install Virtualbox on a computer running Fedora
19, that used the new UEFI BIOS. After disabling "Secure Boot" in UEFI,
Virtualbox install normally. If the new Dell computer is using UEFI,
try disabling "Secure Boot" in the UEFI BIOS. It's a long shot, but
worth a try.
#-----------------------
Excerpt:
The Unified Extensible Firmware Interface (UEFI) (pronounced as an
initialism U-E-F-I or like "unify" without the n)[a] is a specification
that defines a software interface between an operating system and
platform firmware. UEFI is meant to replace the Basic Input/Output
System (BIOS) firmware interface, originally present in all IBM
PC-compatible personal computers.[2][3] In practice, most UEFI images
provide legacy support for BIOS services. UEFI can support remote
diagnostics and repair of computers, even without another operating
system.[4]
#------------------------
#------------------------
Excerpt:
Secure boot[edit]
See also: Windows 8: Secure boot and Hardware restrictions: Secure boot
In 2011, Microsoft announced that computers certified to run its Windows
8 operating system had to ship with secure boot enabled using a
Microsoft private key. Following the announcement, the company was
accused by critics and free software/open source advocates (including
the Free Software Foundation) of trying to use the secure boot
functionality of UEFI to hinder or outright prevent the installation of
alternative operating systems such as Linux. Microsoft denied that the
secure boot requirement was intended to serve as a form of lock-in, and
clarified its requirements by stating that systems certified for Windows
8 must allow secure boot to enter custom mode or be disabled, but not on
systems using the ARM architecture.[42][91]
Other developers raised concerns about the legal and practical issues of
implementing support for secure boot on Linux systems in general. Former
Red Hat developer Matthew Garrett noted that conditions in the GNU
General Public License version 3 may prevent the use of the GRUB
bootloader without a distribution's developer disclosing the private key
(however, the Free Software Foundation has since clarified its position,
assuring that the responsibility to make keys available was held by the
hardware manufacturer),[68] and that it would also be difficult for
advanced users to build custom kernels that could function with secure
boot enabled without self-signing them.[91] Other developers suggested
that signed builds of Linux with another key could be provided, but
noted that it would be difficult to persuade OEMs to ship their
computers with the required key alongside the Microsoft key.[3]
Several major Linux distributions have developed different
implementations for secure boot. Matthew Garrett himself developed a
minimal bootloader known as shim; a pre-compiled, signed bootloader that
allows the user to individually trust keys provided by distributors.[92]
Ubuntu 12.10 uses an older version of shim pre-configured for use with
Canonical's own key that only verifies the bootloader and allows
unsigned kernels to be loaded: developers believed this practice of only
signing the bootloader is more feasible, since a trusted kernel is only
effective at securing user space and not the pre-boot state (which
secure boot is designed to protect). This also allows users to build
their own kernels and use custom kernel modules as well, without needing
to re-configure the system.[68][93][94] Canonical also maintains its own
private key to sign installations of Ubuntu pre-loaded on certified OEM
computers that run the operating system, and also plans to enforce a
secure boot requirement as well---requiring both a Canonical key and a
Microsoft key (for compatibility reasons) to be included in their
firmware. Fedora also uses shim, but requires that both the kernel and
its modules be signed as well.[93]
It has been disputed whether the kernel and its modules must be signed
as well; while the UEFI specifications do not require it, Microsoft has
asserted that their contractual requirements do, and that it reserves
the right to revoke any certificates used to sign code that can be used
to compromise the security of the system.[94] In February 2013, another
Red Hat developer attempted to submit a patch to the Linux kernel that
would allow it to parse Microsoft's authenticode signing using a master
X.509 key embedded in PE files signed by Microsoft. However, the
proposal was criticized by Linux creator Linus Torvalds, who attacked
Red Hat for supporting Microsoft's control over the secure boot
infrastructure.[95]
On March 26, 2013, the Spanish free software development group
Hispalinux filed a formal complaint with the European Commission,
contending that Microsoft's secure boot requirements on OEM systems were
"obstructive" and anti-competitive.[96]
At the Black Hat conference in August 2013, a group of security
researchers presented a series of exploits in specific vendor
implementations of UEFI that could be used to exploit secure boot.[97]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_Interface#Secure_boot_2
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dn481258.aspx
#----------------------------
Regards,
LelandJ
On 08/11/2014 02:42 PM, Ted Roche wrote:
One of the Associates picked up a shiny new machine, Dell Precision M6700,
with all the bells and whistles: i7-3740QM CPU, 16 Gb Ram, dual 1TB-RAID1
HDDs. massive 17" screen. Yikes.
Went through the usual infinite MS updates (117 of them, followed by 6 or 8
more, a couple of reboots) and got around to installing VFP7 ( we use
several versions). Installed the pre-requisites okay, but went to install
VFP7 and got the error message,
Internal Error 2356. msinet.msm
User has administrator rights. Will retry the install with "Run as
administrator" - re-ran "Windows Compnent Upgrade" and then the VFP
install with the same error.
Googling the error didn't yield any relevant results.
Suggestions?
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message:
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/53e92b6c.1040...@mail.smvfp.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
